Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I have two comments before I call on the next speaker. Number one, I wouldn't count on the next Trump administration--maybe, but I wouldn't count on it. Number two, during the Trump administration, anti-Asian crimes spiked, and as I recall, we passed an anti-Asian crimes bill, which was signed into law by President Biden. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, it has been said that figures don't lie but liars figure. The figures are very clear. Crime has gone down under the Biden administration. I don't care what anybody in this Chamber says. Those are the statistics. Consult the FBI and crime statistics. Crime has gone down every single year since the Biden administration took office. No one can debate that, at least no one can debate that if you believe the FBI statistics or any other statistics, unless you are getting your information from the Trump campaign or from Project 2025 or other less than honest sources. Having said that, I urge the defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, using fear and division for political benefit while pushing policies that hurt American innovation and American ideals is irresponsible and dangerous. However, that is exactly what we are doing here today. The China Initiative was a divisive program that made Americans afraid of one another and produced zero benefits. Donald Trump and the MAGA movement had 4 years to come up with new policy solutions, but they decided to play politics instead. Just last week, we learned that the Russian Government was paying conservative influencers in an attempt to manipulate our elections. We also know that they are not the only hostile foreign nation trying to do so. We should be working to address that threat. We should be working to protect our elections. Instead, we are taking part in a partisan exercise that does nothing except take our eye off the ball to the real dangers to our people, our government, and our businesses. There is so much we could do together. Under the Biden-Harris administration we enacted the bipartisan Chips and Science Act which has sparked tremendous investment in domestic manufacturing of computer chips crucial to national security. That is what actual leadership and that is what actual policy solutions look like. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen the politics of division. Instead of looking forward and developing new strategies for taking on the threats that face this Nation, the Republican majority wants to take us back to the failed policies of the past. The Chinese Government poses real threats, but this bill would do nothing to address them while setting back our efforts to take meaningful action. The China Initiative failed to address any of the actual threats posed by the Chinese Government and only succeeded in ruining the careers of academics and scientists of Chinese descent while stifling American innovation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would add to the annual report a study on the impact of hacking and trade secret theft by the PRC on the United States economy. If anything, this amendment highlights the magnitude of agreement between Republicans and Democrats on the danger from the Government of China to our economy and our security. I have no problem with the Department of Justice increasing its reporting to us. I, too, would like to know how hacking by PRC-affiliated groups impacts the United States economy. For that matter, I would like to know how it impacts our elections and our national security, too. If this bill only consisted of its annual report section, we could all agree and move on. Agreement, however, is not a possibility under this partisan exercise. The China Initiative is part of the Trump Project 2025 agenda not because of its potential for good bipartisan work, but, rather, when the China Initiative was an active program, it divided Americans and encouraged foreign scientists to leave our research labs. This bill would do the same, and improving the reporting section unfortunately will not change that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would require agencies to identify intellectual property theft of small businesses by the CCP. I have no concerns with adding this to the legislation, and I agree that it is important that we root out instances of intellectual property theft of small businesses. Unfortunately, adding this provision to H.R. 1398 does not make small businesses any safer from IP theft by the Government of China. In fact, it puts them in even more danger. Since the end of the China Initiative, the Department of Justice has implemented the Strategy for Countering Nation-State Threats and the Disruptive Technology Strike Force, which have been effective at rooting out economic espionage and trade theft by nation-states, including China. The China Initiative was a total failure. Adding this well- intentioned amendment to Frankenstein's monster is not going to make this program less of a failure when we resurrect it. Moreover, by requiring the DOJ to create a duplicate program and then attempting to impose limitations on the use of resources, this bill dilutes and ultimately reduces the ability of prosecutors and investigators to respond to the range of foreign threats faced by the United States. Again, I support this amendment and the spirit with which it is offered, even though it would not improve the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require an analysis of the use of unmanned aircraft by the PRC, as well as related elements, such as communication links and components required to operate safely and efficiently in national airspace. I appreciate that the gentleman from Florida is curious about spying by the PRC in the United States. I think we all are. As with all of these other amendments, even if, by themselves, they were a good or even just neutral idea, they cannot make the China Initiative redux any better. I have said this repeatedly throughout this process. We agree on the threat from the government of China, so what is the purpose of bringing up a bill that divides us? I would also note that the investigation into the PRC's use of CUAS to spy on the United States is being conducted by multiple agencies, including the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI. Some Republicans in Congress have fought to defund the FBI and CISA over the past 2 years. Agencies that are working to counter nation- state threats are the very same ones that some of my colleagues across the aisle want to destroy. If we want to keep America safe and our economy strong, the best action we can take is to fund the government entirely and in a bipartisan fashion, but, instead, we are here in this Chamber playing politics instead. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would require prosecutors to investigate investments made by Chinese companies and subsidiaries listed on the Bureau of Industry and Security's Entity List and the DOD's PRC Military Companies List. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment primarily because the language here exemplifies the broader problem with the entire legislation. By requiring an agency to investigate certain parties, the China Initiative did not give prosecutors leeway to prioritize cases or to choose where to expend resources. This all-or- nothing approach resulted in a culture of fear in research labs across America with few successful prosecutions to show for it. This approach is what led to investigations of grant applications for paperwork errors. Rather than looking for the individuals seeking to commit trade crimes, the requirement to investigate relegated many DOJ prosecutors to the role of meter maids handing out parking tickets. Mr. Chair, I am also opposed to this amendment because we already do something very similar. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States already looks at all pending Chinese investments into the United States. This amendment would duplicate this work, causing a further strain on the limited resources available at the Department of Justice. Finally, the language is unclear as to the limit of these investigations. This broad mandate for investigations into existing investments without any clear objective, again, could lead to the kind of overreach the original China Initiative suffered from. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 3706, the Victims' Voices Outside and Inside the Courtroom Effectiveness Act, or the Victims' VOICES Act, is bipartisan legislation that would amend the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to make certain family members, friends, legal guardians, and others eligible to receive repayment for expenses incurred as a result of helping victims of crime seek justice and restorative care. While the intention of the MVRA is to ensure that victims of violent crime, crimes against property, and other crimes are compensated by defendants for their losses, the limitations placed on who may receive restitution can create unfair consequences for those who have provided much-needed support to victims. That is why it has become necessary for Congress to consider the broader impact of the diverse judicial interpretations of the MVRA on those individuals who play a vital role in helping victims recover and heal. Victims of crime often experience a range of emotional, physical, and psychological challenges that can make it difficult to navigate the complex, legal, and therapeutic processes involved in pursuing justice and healing. In the wake of these crimes, particularly violent crimes, support from family members, friends, legal guardians, and others is crucial for victims not only to actively participate in the investigation and prosecution of their cases, but to receive the medical care, psychological treatment, and other support services that they so desperately need. These exceptional people play a critical role in providing comfort and assistance to victims of crime, which requires significant time and effort. Oftentimes, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, guardians, and best friends take on the daunting responsibility of transporting their loved ones over several weeks and months or sometimes even years to meet with investigators and prosecutors or to receive treatment, therapy, or other services. They sit through monthslong trials, sentencing hearings, and other court proceedings alongside their traumatized loved ones, providing support and encouragement while spending countless hours away from their jobs, needing additional childcare, and spending huge amounts of money on travel. Unfortunately, several jurisdictions have refused to allow repayment of the money spent or not earned by family members and others who they have determined do not meet the MVRA's definition of ``victim.'' Despite recognizing the good policy reasons for allowing a court to order reimbursement to a victim's representative for such expenditures, the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, as well as many lower courts, have held that the language of the MVRA limits restitution to losses incurred only by victims and not by those who help them. We must not allow this injustice to persist. It is, therefore, necessary that Congress makes clear that family members and others should receive compensation for the costs they have incurred as a result of aiding victims of crime as they traverse the lengthy and often overwhelming path to justice. This legislation would satisfy this objective by clarifying that restitution should be made to family members and others in the same manner as victims for lost income, childcare, transportation, and other expenses incurred to participate in an investigation or prosecution, attend proceedings, or transport the victim for medical care, treatment, or therapy. By ensuring that courts are authorized to order restitution in this manner, this legislation would encourage the provision of support to victims and ensure perpetrators of crime are made to pay for all of the losses they cause while advancing fairness, accountability, and justice. I commend the sponsor of the House version of this bill, Ms. Hageman, along with her bipartisan lead Cosponsors, Representatives Lucy McBath, Hank Johnson, and Nathaniel Moran for their efforts, along with the Senate sponsors of this bill. I encourage my colleagues to join me and a broad coalition of victims' advocacy groups and law enforcement in support of this thoughtful, bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, family members, legal guardians, and others work closely with victims of crime as they work to resolve the trauma of their victimization and the offenses committed against them. Having a strong support system can help victims feel empowered and less isolated in their experiences, which can ultimately strengthen their resolve to participate in the investigation and prosecution of the crime, and to seek treatment for injuries seen and unseen. S. 3706, the Victims' VOICES Act would authorize courts to order defendants to pay restitution not only to victims of crime for their losses, but also to others for the costs they incur as they stand with victims in the pursuit of justice. I support this bipartisan legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 4548, the Foreign Extortion Prevention Technical Corrections Act. Last year, we enacted the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, or FEPA, landmark legislation that would combat kleptocracy and help protect the rule of law. FEPA was the first expansion of our country's antibribery and anticorruption laws in nearly 50 years. This law provides another useful tool to combat corruption and stop it at its source by making it a crime for any foreign official to solicit or accept a bribe from any American person or American company. It was already the law that U.S. persons who offer to pay bribes overseas could be prosecuted, but there was no corresponding law prohibiting foreign entities and officials from demanding or accepting bribes. Foreign corrupt officials too often demand bribes from companies hoping to do business with them. This unethical practice unfairly benefits dishonest companies, granting them a competitive advantage, and placing law-abiding companies and citizens, including American ones, at a disadvantage. FEPA changed that by stopping corruption at its source. The passage of FEPA was a watershed moment for our democracy, particularly because research shows that the vast majority of bribe-demanding foreign officials never face consequences in their own countries. FEPA makes it much harder for these foreign officials to cultivate a culture where corruption and bribery are the norm. After FEPA was enacted into law, it became clear that certain technical corrections were necessary to fully effectuate the law. This legislation would make those necessary changes to ensure that our fight to end corruption is well equipped. I was proud to vote for FEPA last year, and I am proud to vote for it again through this bill. I must observe that consideration of this bill is bittersweet today because the House sponsor of FEPA was our late, beloved colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who we lost just this past weekend. Her impact on this Chamber was immeasurable, and she was the champion of so many issues from criminal justice to voting rights to civil rights and civil liberties and so much more. She was also passionate about fighting against corruption, both at home and abroad, and passage of today's bill would be a small tribute to the mark that she has left on this country and on all of us. This legislation simply makes technical corrections to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, important bipartisan anticorruption legislation, which was enacted last year. This bill has already passed the Senate. I urge all Members to support the bill and send it to the President's desk, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Pro Codes Act is sensible, bipartisan legislation that strikes a balance between copyright protection and public access to information, thus resolving a clear uncertainty in the law. This legislation would allow standards developing organizations, or SDOs, to retain their copyrights when their standards are incorporated by reference into the law, so long as they make a copy freely available online. SDOs are organizations that develop and publish standards to govern certain highly technical industries. These best practices govern everything from consumer safety and household utility installation to home electrical wiring and plumbing planning. SDOs make sure that your house won't catch on fire, your plumbing is up to code, your water boiler is installed correctly, and everything in between. You rely on your local contractor, and your contractor relies on their SDO standards. State and local legislatures, which generally do not have the requisite experts on staff to write highly technical standards, often choose to incorporate rigorously developed and diligently updated SDO standards by reference into the law. In this way, legislators can key their State's laws to codes that are regularly updated, as mistakes are fixed, new methods are developed, and technological advancements are incorporated into best practices. However, this practice exists at the crux of a dilemma in American intellectual property law today. On one hand, everyone typically benefits when local, State, or Federal legislators adopt content developed by SDOs into their laws. The law benefits from dynamic safety codes created by experts in their fields, and SDOs in turn benefit from more customers for their published works. If the copyright to that material were taken away, the incentives for the SDOs would disappear and the mutually beneficial relationship would no longer exist. On the other hand, Americans also have an essential interest in knowing that they can access the laws that govern them. Because of this principle, once a code is enacted into law, Americans must have access to this information because if you can't find the code, you don't know how it will affect you. The Pro Codes Act seeks to find the middle ground between these two competing interests. This legislation would allow SDOs to retain their copyrights when their standards are incorporated by reference into the law so long as they make a copy available online at no cost. Although I support this legislation, I do want to note that the bill could have been improved further had we held a hearing, as I and others had requested. A hearing would have enabled Members to ask questions of stakeholders with various viewpoints, to make any necessary refinements, and to convince more of our colleagues that this bill is the right path forward. Unfortunately, that process did not occur. Be that as it may, I still believe that this legislation would improve our laws by protecting SDOs' intellectual property rights while ensuring that Americans have access to the laws that bind them. I thank Chairman Issa and Congresswoman Ross for introducing this bipartisan legislation. I urge all Members to support this legislation.